OMG! Scott Walker Once Backed A Gun Control Bill! OMG!

“Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s got an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association,” bloomberg.com reports,”but he once backed a bill that could have -” Stop right there! I gotta know right now, before we go any further, do you love me? Will you love me forever? Do you need me? Will you never leave me? Will you make me so happy for the rest of my life? Will you take me away and will you make me your wife? OK, not wife. But seriously, what gun bill did Everytown for Civilian Disarmament jefe Bloomberg’s minions uncover that could scuttle his presidential aspirations amongst pro-gunners? Glad you asked . . .

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s got an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association, but he once backed a bill that could have jailed gun dealers who sold weapons without trigger locks—and the people who bought them.

Walker, at the time a junior member of the state assembly, briefly co-sponsored a bill in 1995 making it illegal for any federally licensed gun dealer in the state to sell a weapon that wasn’t secured with a trigger lock, and also made it illegal to buy one. The penalty: fines of up to $10,000 and jail sentences of up to nine months.

Now that Walker is preparing to run for president—and seen by some as the early frontrunner for the Republican nomination—his flirtation with gun control could create an opportunity for competitors who have been more pure on the issue to question the depth of Walker’s anti-gun-control beliefs.

I really do wish that could happen but far too many in the political field are too scared to vote their conscience and vote for who they think will win. So you get this watered down version of what people want to appeal to a “median” voter. Then you are left in a sort of ‘prisoners dilemma’ when you want to vote your conscience. Do you vote for who you really support? If you do that then you may be detracting votes away from the candidate that could actually win and then we are left with Hillary in office.

Basically it comes down to a cost-benefit chart that always results in the most polished turd getting more votes in order to counter the opposition.

I intend to “vote” for the same thing I have for the last 40 years: None of the above.

Not one politician in a thousand has done anything at all to reduce the burden of theft or coercion ALL levels of government impose, and increase year after year. The names change, but the lies continue.

Why do any of us allow these thieves, liars and even murderers to continue to exercise any authority over us? Why do any of us give them consent at all? Walker might be a very good man, but I don’t need a ruler of any kind. Do you? Really?

I intend to “vote” for the same thing I have for the last 40 years: None of the above.

People who didn’t vote have given us 8 years of Obama presidency, and are every bit as culpable for his disastrous policies.

Walker might be a very good man, but I don’t need a ruler of any kind. Do you? Really?

If you want a system other than the constitutional republic with a three-branch federal government that we currently have, work to replace it. Our choices are to participate, give in to our ideological opponents by not participating, or going off the deep end and pretend we’re not part of the system (e.g. Sovereign Citizens).

We’ve had this discussion before. Nothing has changed. As long as you keep doing the same thing, you will keep getting the same thing. And as long as you keep giving the power and authority over your life to politicians and bureaucrats, you’ll continue getting the “service” you get now… Think bulls and cows.

My zero “vote” doesn’t do anything to promote the “service,” intentionally. And my “vote” won’t make a particle of difference to what happens. Neither will yours. The only one that “wins” any election is the government, and they go right on doing whatever they please, regardless of their promises, because they take that “vote” as your consent to be ruled. History is a pretty good documentation of exactly that.

The most important votes are those cast in the primaries and for local offices. Yet these are the very elections with the lowest turnout. This demonstrates that non-voters don’t understand politics and cumulative momentum that flows from election to election.

I used to become viscerally angry when conservatives and evangelicals would talk about how useless voting is, and then start complaining about the government: The error lies in ignoring the results of inactivity during primaries. You can’t sit out the local and national primary fights, gatherings, elections, and then bitch about the candidates. If nothing else you can have a large impact on your state delegation….not just at the final Dem v. Rep election, but in the primary stage, so that you have better choice of candidate in the final election.

As for all the moaning and groaning about the horrors of our government: First, you really can join with others to push for specific changes you want. Second, get some historical perspective. Government is something that exists everywhere and in every era where humans congregate. It isn’t magically worse now than in ancient Rome, or this year’s Congo, or (pick your place).

Here’s an interesting fact: In 1935 the median U.S. household income south of the Mason-Dixon line was (in inflation-adjusted $) $5,100. Most Texans were dirt poor and lacked electricity, which only arrived for most Texans when Lyndon Johnson tricked the Federal government into thinking his planned hydro-electric plants were really just “rural water projects.” Politics is always and everywhere hardball. It’s never the right time to throw in the towel. It is always the right time to pick one obtainable valuable change in government and politic for it.

I’m with MamaLiberty on this one! It is an old discussion, and I for one with hold my consent [as is my right] and will not be a party to the use of force that voting entitles to those that do. nuff said…

This is a non issue. Especially back in the 90s and beyond, when many members of the GOP were often duped into agreeing with some gun control legislation. Walker has since done a lot for gun rights in Wisconsin. Liberals are terrified of this man, and I love it.

Wait until the Wisconsin legislature passes the repeal of the 48 hour waiting period for handguns and it hits Walker’s desk, which he’ll surely sign. Blommie’s, Shanny’s, and all the east coast better at the Times are going to lose it.

It’s not just a matter of being duped, a lot of legislation is a mixed bag, particularly when the legislature is Democratic and the Gov./Pres. is Republican. Reagan banned the production and sale of new full auto weapons, but in the same legislation he made it legal to drive through slave states with your weapons secured in the trunk of your car. Romney signed an extension of Massachusetts’ assault weapon ban, but in the same legislation he got a lot of firearms off the banned list. You can sign legislation that could appear to be both anti-2nd amendment and pro-2nd amendment at the same time. Do your homework. Don’t vote stupid.

So much win in that…except for the mischievous propaganda of the lame progressives in the media characterizing everything Walker/Cruz stand for as extremist and wrong, while the Democrat candidates will be pure and well intentioned.

Once again it will be a one sided popularity contest refereed by the liberal media. Maybe Crowley can host another debate.

Walker for the win. I’ve donated hundreds of dollars to his campaigns. I thoroughly enjoy his he makes liberals wet their pants. He’s not perfect, but he’s currently the most dangerous GOP candidate going.

What appeals to me in Walker’s conduct is this, that he is wise to and rejects the trap of trying to seem like a know-it-all. He saves his commentary, answers, for the points that count, and lets the idiotic “gotcha” attempts of the press hang in the air like so many frozen words in Lilliput, eminently ignorable. He is calm, and seems well-able to respond to what is important, treating the lame-stream media trivia for what it is. I would say he has shown great courage in the face of the bussed-in goons. I don’t need a genius or a pretty face in the White House. I need someone who remembers what the job is, and what few important goals should get the focus.

He doesn’t have my vote because he fancies himself a union buster, not because he once co-sponsored a dumb bill. I can’t believe the best thing our side has in response to Hillary is Walker/Cruz/Bush. I guess there’s always 2020.

Sure they are. Look at Detroit. Once the wealthiest city in the US (and, if I’m not mistaken, in the world), it’s been ran into the ground by unions. Unions are a cancer on our society. The sooner we ban them the better.

We’ve had this run-in before IIRC on this topic. You’re a plain freekin idiot if you don’t understand the negatives of a public service union that negotiates with city/state officials that gives away money that isn’t theirs.

Bullshit. Unionism, particularly forced unionism, is a monumental problem in this nation. Big unions pour millions into lefty / control freak campaigns all over the nation. Right To Work laws horrify unions.

When the donor money was counted after the last national election, were the Koch brothers high on the list? No, they were behind, among others, seventeen separate unions.

The problem with public employee unions is that they cut deals with the politicians. “Tax the people more to pay us more, and we’ll give your next campaign a cut of our take.” It is what has destroyed California and Illinois, among others. Even when the public starts to push back, the game just changes to “give us enforceable promises to pay us more when we retire. We’ll give your campaign a percentage now.” A private sector union can only demand what the profitability of that business can afford. Public sector unions can and do make demands far in excess of what can be squeezed from current taxpayers.

So a child asks for a great big slice of cake. The adult gives the child a great big slice of cake. Who is at fault? The child for asking or the adult for giving?

Unions can ask for whatever they want, the politicians are not obligated to give.

My opinion is admittedly skewed because I work in a Right to Work State AND I am a Civil Service Worker and Union member (AFSCME). AND, I work in the same City that employees me so all those increase in taxes that I am supposed to be asking for are coming out of my own pocket.

Unions do lots of things wrong, even my own Union drives me nuts with the things they promote. A lot should be done to correct what Unions do and how starting with Open Shop and Right to Work ideas. Something else that needs to be stopped is the scapegoating and blaming of Unions, particularly Public Sector Unions. Like I said, A part of the problem, not THE problem. They may have helped to drive Detroit to bankruptcy, but the Unions were hardly the only problem that City suffered from.

The union members who are pro 2nd amendment, yet reliably vote for the politicians who would take their guns away in the blink of an eye if they could just baffles me to no end. I see it all the time on Facebook. Union guys post stuff on their page that would make Barry Goldwater proud, yet vote exactly the way their union tells them to. Which is always a democrat, usually a liberal (progressive or whatever they are calling themselves today) democrat. They must serve some really good kool-aid at union meetings.

Muddy, your argument makes no sense: You can exercise your shooting skills for a few thousand a year. No PS union in the U.S. considers that more than chump change.

It may seem callous, but political history is on my side since the days of our revolution: If there is any group that we might wish to have a bit less ammunition, it is government employees. If we vote to pay them more without their controlling the election’s outcome, fine. But to the extent they are using our tax money to fund their political agenda, less ammunition in their hands can only be called a wise precaution.

Yeah, but no one should be forced to join a union or not get a job. Thats why “right to work” has been so popular. It doesnt mean anyone has a government entitled “right” to work, its just the wording of the law, it simply means one can get a job without being forced into a bullying union and be forced to pay union dues for politics you dont agree with.

If they don’t like their current working conditions, they should quit.

A union has no more right to use government to force employers to meet a certain pay rate or other requirements than a shopkeeper has to use government to force his customers to buy items they don’t want at higher prices.

There is no place for the AFL-CIO style union in a free market society. Unions represent government sticking its nose in a private negotiation that it is not a party to. There is a place for unions that represent employees in negotiations, without using the force of law to bully employers.

Conversely, there’s no place in the free market for the “right to work” legislation that guys like Walker support. If an employer and its employees voluntarily agree to a closed shop configuration, government should have no say in the matter. If people want to work there, the employer is within its right to require whatever it wishes. And as long as the union doesn’t force this situation on the employer using government, it’s consistent with free market principles.

Plenty of monies to put in place more pension-sucking administrative paper-pushers (in the era of ever powerful computers) but no money left over for bullet proof vests. Sounds like an organization that is totally F’d up from head to toe and ripe for some pruning.

Detroit officers were already making much more than the median income of Detroit workers. Demanding vests was piled on top of a demand for higher pay. The city couldn’t afford both. The officers refused to accept less. A good vest costs about $500 and lasts at least five years. Cops couldn’t contribute $100 a year for their own safety? When the city was broke?

The anti-hollow-point bit was a Democratic Party plank, and still is in New Jersey. But recall, even the FBI had to fight to get hollow-points. In fact, the FBI Quantico post-Miami new cartridge selection team later admitted that there was no history whatever at the FBI of shooting a bad guy only to find the bullet killed more innocents behind him. They admitted that they pushed that scare tactic argument only in order to get hollow points approved. Of course the next thing they did was what? Insist on better hollow-points that penetrated even farther. Laugh. (This info is all online…just google the 10mm selection process.)

For all the endless blather on gun sites (including this one) about the ‘over-penetration problem,’ it doesn’t exist. The problem, rather, is of shots that miss the perp entirely, but hit innocent bystanders. If you hit a perp who is invading your home, you aren’t going to hit the kid in the next house. If you miss, who knows what your bullet will connect with? Use a carbine or slug. Use good fast-acquisition HWS or red dot sights. Use, laugh, hollow-points..but not in New Jersey.

So, with the unions gone all those fair and ethical big business guys are not going to flood the halls of congress with tons of money to roll back the laws that protect the workers? Are all the ttag commenters supporting the destruction of unions business owners?

Some people, sadly some potg, seem intent on taking a 1st world country and turning it into another 3rd world sh!thole.

The argument is about public employee unions. Government agencies are not run by corporate CEOs, and public unions do not negotiate for a share of profits. Anything they demand and win comes straight and unwillingly from the taxpayers’ pockets. The line between private and public unions was crystal clear and the reasons well understood….but in 1963 Kennedy threw that out the window to bolster state results in key districts. That proved to be a disaster.

Public-employee (i.e. taxpayer-paid) unions are not quite the same as private-sector unions. In the private sector, the unions are (at least theoretically) checked from making outrageous, economically unsustainable demands by the possibility that such demands, if acceded to, could actually kill the employer and leave the union membership unemployed altogether. And the employer has an incentive to oppose unsustainable demands because they have to make a profit to survive. But the also have to have employees. In other words, both sides have some incentive to compromise. Public-sector unions have no such (theoretical) checks and incentives, as their employer (the gov) does not have to make a profit in order to survive. And the gov does not have any big incentive to oppose the public unions’ demands, as the gov can always survive by the oft-repeated expedient of raising taxes. I’m not a fan of unions either way, but even folks who are should be aware of the difference between private and public-sector unions.

If a private-sector union and management cannot reach agreement, at worst one company (and maybe its suppliers) goes under. When a public sector union demands more, the government unit and its taxpayers simply go further into debt, increasing permanently the share of tax revenue used to pay loan interest and unfunded pension liabilities. The cycle is vicious, as you can see in the current state accounts of Illinois and others, not to mention the federal government.

Private sector unions can be just as damaging as public one’s. In IL, if a government entity hires a non-union private business to do work, those employees must be paid a “prevailing wage” i.e. union wages while doing work on the government contract. Please tell me what benefit this is for anyone that’s not in a union? The taxpayers are left holding a larger bill for work done by a business who could do the exact same job for a private party for less, it’s ridiculous.

Yes, it’s ridiculous. But the result flowed from a coalition of public and private union political spending/power. There were not enough dollars from the private unions alone to buy the machine. Look it up.

Well to be fair I’m sure there was a nice article written about how this was the most un-American thing possible. People buy into that stuff without a second thought and that’s why most voters are doing it half blind. Basing votes on information from one type of media outlet is insane. I really wish people would search for information instead of waiting for it to come to them. It’s like that old phrase “If you aren’t buying anything, you’re the thing being sold”.

The WI teachers union gets a lot worse than that. Every bargained contact in the state has to buy the teachers’ no-deductible, no-premium insurance from the same company – WEA Trust, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Union. Which charged double for the insurance. Keeping the Cadillac policies and just changing to another company shaves almost $8000 a head off the cost.

The Teachers Union has also been the biggest spender – by far – in WI politics for years. Between dues and the shady insurance scam, they had plenty to spend.

I’m part of union, and I realize the conflict of interest. However, I’m a white cop who may have to fight or shoot a minority, so I need my union for protection. Unions aren’t all bad all the time, but public employee unions are mostly bad most of the time. Taxpayers would be better off without them.

“Fraternal Associations” existed and were able to defend the sort of risk you describe, long before they gained the power to force association, to contribute to election campaigns, and to strike (a right that varies by jurisdiction).

Who cares even if he continued to support it? Trigger locks aren’t all bad, I use em on guns once in a while, especially when storing them. They cost, like, $1.50 and are voluntary, and could help you keep things more secure, if you so choose. This is not an issue to fall on your sword over.

You’re right, I fell on my sword once and it hurt, and I promised myself I’d never do that again!

The anti-gun crowd out there is surely grasping at straws to try to malign anyone they think may have chance at the nomination. Hillary burns her records so no one can get them. Leftists don’t care. IRS lies and breaks the law, and the leftists don’t care. A man withdraws his sponsorship of a bill and left is salivating?

I didn’t know Cruz was some religious zealot, but regardless, he’d be my 3rd choice anyway. I’m much more concerned about the economy and government spending. I prefer somebody who understands why Austrian economics works, and, just as importantly, why Keynesian econ does not (and what a bunch of nonsense it is). I want small government and term limits. I want a national sales tax and no other taxes. Other than security and national defense, I want the government out of everything else. If Cruz could deliver, I wouldn’t mind voting for him. But out of those three, I think he’s the weakest one.

Dunno, I’m still waiting for more information before deciding about Cruz. But as a general rule, I like candidates who have served as Governor of a state, and I don’t like Senators running for President- no matter how many terms they’ve served.

I think we can all agree that Cruz would be a better Veep than Biden, at least. 😉

Cruz (or any other GOP politican, for that matter, save perhaps for Santorum) is not a religious zealot. He’s merely pandering to the most active wing of the party electorate, and that wing is dominated by religious zealots, so he talks the talk.

Leftist tripe. The country has been become less Christian every day since the founding of our country. The glide slope went off a cliff in the 60’s. We are in sorry need for a little coarse correction and little is the best we can hope for because the Left is in control of about every lever of media and popular culture.

Gun locks, really? Who actually uses those? All of mine are packed neatly in the original box with the keys still in their sealed wrapper. I really don’t understand why all guns come with one. Must be some liberal thinking that it will actually be used or prevent something, what I don’t know.

I actually used them on my first two long guns before I bought a big safe. My first daughter was way too young to get at them at the time but better safe than sorry. They’ve all ended up in a drawer since then.

By the time I get to vote, the primary will most likely be decided, largely by some small blue states, so I can’t get too attached to any of the candidates until the nomination is decided. Texans really have zero say in who gets the nomination.

They tried the “he didn’t finish college! ” meme and that didn’t catch fire, so they’re reduced to this. Given how hostile things were in Wisconsin during the last few years, I think this is all his opponents can find.

I may vote for Rand Paul if got the nomination, depending if he decides to lick the neocons and Israeli government’s boots on foreign policy. If he does, not in my name.

National reciprocity would be nice but probably won’t happen even with a republican in there. No GCA or NFA drawbacks will be forthcoming. On everything but guns, there isn’t enough difference between the two parties to justify a vote, rhetoric aside.

That picture. *sigh* Can we come up with a better phony “I’m pro-gun” photo op for these political types than dressing up like Elmer Fudd and pretending they’re a hunter? Every one of these morons does it, and they all look so uncomfortable and ridiculous. They slap on some brand-new blaze orange and camo that still has the Bass Pro tags on it, and it looks like Halloween costume. Hey, guys, I don’t care if you hunt, or shoot clays, or shoot 3-gun, or have never even touched a gun in your life, as long as you support the 2A – for real. Your voting record on the subject is all that matters. So stop playing dress-up already.

I heard (from an anonymous source) that Scott Walker once stuck his tongue out at a black girl in grade school.
So, the real question is how can a misogynist, racist bully, crazy gun-nut ever be trusted to run the greatest country on earth? Huh? Answer me that, Meat Loaf.
Yours truly
Rachel Maddow, MSNBC

As usual the debates will show who the left is truly scared of, that will be the one who gets the stupid questions like ” Do you still beat your wife”? YES OR NO!!!

Newt had them scared spit-less so the media tore him a new one over his divorce, Every time a GOP hard liner gets some good jumps out of the gate they hack him to death.

In the last race Ron Paul was completely ignored in the debates except when they had a question that if he told it like it was would make him look bad.

When Bucanon won the primary in I think it was new Hampshire it scared the left so bad they went after him because his campaign manager was at a gun show where David Duke was going to speak so that made Bucannon a racist ?? WTF?? Yet we put up with this crap, we let the left pick our candidate ( See Dole , McCain, Romney)… I would like to see Fox handle the GOP debates or some non media group. No reporters, no agenda. Just honesty.

As for the unions, when they support the liberal left with millions of dollars of Union money are they supporting the will of the members? no… they are king makers, Howard Menie ( sp?) AFL/CIO once said “HE” picked the president, so you union gun owners just keep donating to the liberal left thru your dues.

Until we stop bickering among ourselves we won’t win, so what if Cruz talks like a Christian? Hell Obama talks like a commie as does the rest of the Dim-O – craps, which is worse? being a christian don’t mean he can or would change America into a religious cult. If he says ” I own guns , I believe in God” what’s the problem? Unfortunately some office seekers have the idea that they religious right will vote for the left unless the GOP guy is a hard corps bible pounder, not true, they will vote conservative every time, just like you do, all of us voted for McCain even when we didn’t want to, the same for Dole and Romney.

I’d like to see Walker/Cruz or Ryan or Cruz/Walker or Ryan… But if we get stuck with another McCain RINO I will vote for a third party, if I’m throwing my vote away it will be for the one “I” want.

Walker and Ryan are both from Wisconsin. So that’s a nonstarter ticket.

Candidates need to appeal to the religious right not out of fear they’ll vote for a Dem, but out of concern they won’t vote at all. Conservatives of all flavors stayed home in 2012 because Romney was a mushy moderate. Had he come on more strong, he’d have won.

Flat out rejecting the religious right and attacking them, in a misguided attempt to attract a broader coalition isn’t the answer either. Just ask President McCain. Oh wait.

LOL, no. Religious fundie conservatives never stay at home, and will always come out and vote for a Republican candidates. BECAUSE DEMOCRATS MURDER CHILDREN!!!1!!!! OMG.

The reason why the candidates need to appeal to the Christian Taliban is because they will lose in the primaries otherwise. Because those guys are the most active participants in the party politics, and hence what they like and don’t like translates to very real gains or losses disproportionate to their overall number.

I sure like Fiorina, , and really would have liked to have seen her win her Senate campaign. She’s a big critic of Hillary, too, so she could serve well in the running mate’s role of “hatchet man”, too. 2016 could be a very entertaining race.

This is borderline trivial now, and an utter nonevent after two decades. So I wouldn’t hold this against him. It’s more than offset by his remaining pro-gun record. Still, I don’t see firearms being a major issue for him, and certainly not the litmus test it is for me.

More troubling is Walker’s flip flopping. Sometimes he abandons good positions, like ending ethanol subsidies. Sometimes he lurches expediently and only recently toward good positions, like securing the border against illegal aliens.

Overall, he’s a good governor and I’d vote to keep him in that job, were I from Wisconsin. For President, though? He hasn’t proven himself on the national stage with enough real life, big issue action, yet. He’s young, though, so there’s plenty of time.

Walker has done some good things for our state, but not all good. Under his watch we’ve plummeted to #40 in job creation- we’re now worst in the midwest.
He’s borrowing too much money, kicking debt payments down the road, funding an EDC that can’t account for the taxpayer funds it’s spent and still running a significant deficit no different than his Dem predecessor.
We cut schools, healthcare and programs for the permanently disabled (IRIS) but we have plenty of money to toss at a Milwaukee Bucks stadium?
It would be nice if my party offered a candidate who didn’t just talk about conservative fiscal principles, but actually practiced them. Walker isn’t that guy.